Poking through 11+ years of posts I find information that’s as useful now as when it was written.

Golden Oldies is a collection of the most relevant and timeless posts during that time.

I came across these two posts several weeks apart. The ideas they presented seemed to logically follow each other. This is strange only because the first one shown was written in 2013 and the following post in 2009.

Regarding the actual content, it’s still valid, only more so.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

Three Categories of People

People have longed for an all-knowing leader who they can mindlessly follow and abdicate their decision-making, since time began.

Some seek this all-knowing leader in religion; others look to politics, while still others believe that business is a better source.

Their time would be better spent accepting the reality that no such thing exists anywhere in any walk of life.

Then there are the people who aspire to be that all-knowing leader.

To that end they amass thousands of friends and followers, network their way well beyond what’s needed to be a LinkedIn Lion and work ceaselessly to raise their Klout score.

Finally, there are those who know without doubt that all-knowing leaders are in the same category as the tooth fairy, Easter Bunny and Santa Clause.

Which are you?

Follow Yourself; Partner With Others

I have a great idea to make the world a better place.

• Everybody who aspires to the cult of all-knowing leader stops.
• Everybody who longs for an all-knowing leader embraces the reality that no such thing exists.

Replacing these, everybody would

• learn leadership skills;
• apply them constantly to themselves; and
• occasionally in the outside world as circumstances dictated;
• take responsibility for their own actions and decisions; and
• partner with others as equals, whether one was in front or behind at any given time.

Not that I think there’s a chance in hell that this will happen, but it’s a nice thought on a beautiful summer Friday.

Image credit: Warning Sign Generator

I love occasionally sharing Wally’s posts. I consider him one of the clearest thinkers on real leadership — he makes sense, as opposed to noise. In this one he uses Douglas MacArthur to illustrate something many so-called leaders have either forgotten or ignored.

Despite the moniker “Dugout Doug,” Douglas MacArthur was an exceedingly brave man who was often heedless of danger. In his book, American Caesar, William Manchester tells about the time MacArthur was asked about why he remained in dangerous circumstances instead of seeking cover.

The General replied: “If I do it, the colonels will do it. If the colonels do it, the captains will do it, and so on.” That’s the MacArthur Maxim, what you do sets the example for the people who work for you.

The people who work for you will watch you carefully. They will pay attention to the things you pay attention to. They will be as ethical or not as you are. They will work as hard as you do. What you notice and reward, they will value.

You must make sure that your actions and your words deliver the same message. Which brings us to the Lazarus Corollary to the MacArthur Maxim.

Shelly Lazarus is the Chairman Emeritus of Ogilvy and Mather and former Worldwide Chairman and CEO. Many people consider her a role model. She’s not entirely comfortable with that, but she takes her role as a role model seriously indeed and she works consciously to make sure her actions and her words match up. The following quote is from her pre-Emeritus days.

“I know that work-family balance is important … I choose always to go to the school play, and field day and all that [because] it gives other women in the company, or clients, the confidence to be able to say, ‘I’m going, too.’”

Your example is the most powerful tool you have to influence the behavior of the people who work for you. Make sure you set the example you want and that the example you set and the one you talk about match up.

Reading Resource

American Caesar is William Manchester’s excellent biography of Douglas MacArthur. Manchester’s experience as a Marine who fought in the Pacific side of World War II gives him some special insight and he manages to capture both the genius and absurd posturing of Douglas MacArthur.

Copyright © 2017 Wally Bock, All rights reserved.

It’s amazing to me, but looking back over more than a decade of writing I find posts that are still relevant, with information that is as useful now as when it was written.

Golden Oldies are a collection of some of the best posts during that time.

Today is a two-fer, because, when discussing leadership, commentary on followers should be required.

A lot of water has passed under the bridge since these two posts, 5 years on the first and 10 years on the other, were written and the world has changed drastically. It is far more complex and moves much faster than ever before. What hasn’t changed — contrary to the impression you get from both traditional and new media, whether mainstream or on the fringes — is how much influence so-called leaders actually exert on their followers.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

Hate, Intolerance and Responsibility

Anyone reading the news—local, national or global—knows that hate and intolerance are increasing at an alarming rate everywhere.

Also, because there have been/will be so many elections around the world this year ‘leadership’ is in the news even more so than usual.

What responsibility do leaders—business, political, religious, community—bear in fostering hate and intolerance?

Not just the age old race and gender intolerance, but the I’m/we’re-RIGHT-so-you-should-do/think-our-way-or-else.

The ‘we’re right/you’re wrong’ attitude is as old as humanity and probably won’t ever change, but it’s the ‘do-it-our-way-or-else’ that shows the intolerance for what it really is.

And leaders aren’t helping; in fact, they are making it worse.

During my adult life (I missed being a Boomer by a hair) I’ve watched as hate and intolerance spread across the country masked by religion, a façade of political correctness or a mea culpa that is supposed to make everything OK, but doesn’t.

Various business, political, religious and community leaders give passionate, fiery talks to their followers and then express surprise and dismay when some of those same followers steal trade secrets, plant bombs, and kill individuals—whose only error was following their own beliefs.

We are no longer entitled to the pursuit of happiness if our happiness offends someone next door, the other end of the country, or the far side of the globe.

I remember Ann Rand saying in an interview that she believed that she had the right to be totally selfish, where upon the interviewer said that would give her freedom to kill.

Rand said absolutely not, in fact the reverse was true, since her selfishness couldn’t impinge anyone else’s right to be selfish.

Leaders aren’t responsible; we are because we go along with it—as did the Germans when Hitler led them down the hate and intolerance path.

That about sums up my attitude

What’s yours?

Image credit: Street Sign Generator

Two kinds of followers

In general, followers fall into two categories—thinking and unthinking. All of us have issue-specific litmus tests and look for a general comfort level with other followers.

Thinking followers usually have a broader definition of comfort, critically evaluate individual ideas and attitudes, as opposed to blind across-the-board acceptance, and are more willing to consider compromises. They often challenge their leader offering additional considerations, thoughts, suggestions, as well as open disagreement.

Unthinking followers are more emotional, rarely disagree or argue and may opt out of all thought and consideration following blindly and allowing the leader think for them. At their worst, unthinking followers are fodder for cults.

Most of us would classify ourselves as thinking followers, but are we? I know that politically I have one litmus test that is absolute and a couple of others that have high priority without being locked into specifics. Beyond that, I’ve always considered myself pretty open.

However, as extremists have polarized various issues I find myself becoming more adamant in my own feelings and less open to listening to those who believe that their views represent truth with a capital T — but I still want to live in a country where they have the right to say it.

I’ve lived a long time and I never thought I’d say this, but the rise of social media, with its ability to say anything anonymously sans responsibility, has seriously compromised my belief in free speech.

Yesterday I shared a post from Wally Bock about the importance of trust — and its fragility. At the end Wally said, “Trust is one of the most valuable things you have as a leader.”

Obviously, trust is crucial in any kind of relationship, in or out of the workplace, but today I want to focus on the last word on that sentence — leader.

I’m asked all the time how to become a leader.

Degrees — MBA, PhD, MD, LLB, etc.— won’t make you a leader.

There is an entire industry — classes, coaches, books, pundits of all kinds — expounding on how to become a leader.

Many people think leadership is defined by a person’s position; after all, you hear all the time that someone was “promoted (elected/assigned) to a position of leadership.”

All well and good, but that doesn’t make them a leader.

According to the late Bill Campbell, who established a reputation as the “coach” of Silicon Valley, only one thing determines whether or not you’re a leader: the opinions of those you’re supposed to be leading.

Even having your team do what you tell them doesn’t make you a leader.

Intuit CEO Brad Smith, one of many who learned that from Campbell, says it best.

“Basically, how you make that happen is if you believe that leadership is not about putting greatness into people, leadership is about recognizing that there’s a greatness in everyone and your job is to create an environment where that greatness can emerge.”

So go ahead, term yourself a leader and even brag about your leadership skills, but at the end of the day it’s what your people say about you to their family/friends/colleagues that will confirm you as a leader — or not.

Image credit: Vic

And sometimes it’s completely absent.

Image credit: Judy Caler Rice

Have you ever been a member of a group or team that is flat out terrible? I have. I have been a member of that soccer team that never won a game, the work group that wasn’t succeeding.

Did I like it? Absolutely not. Did I learn from it? I think in some ways I did.

Have you ever seen that same team or group start to succeed with different leadership? In my case I have a very real world example of where this came to pass.

I had the pleasure of serving for five years in The United States Marine Corps. During this five year time the US was involved in several conflicts and I found myself deployed to Fallujah, Iraq.

During my deployment I served with a team of 12 other Marines, together we were known as a squad. Now this is the military, but a small group of people working together can be found within any type of organization. 

Our squad was led by a leader who, while a good guy, was not well equipped to lead a group of Marines into life or death situations.

This person had some leadership challenges that ultimately led to low morale, loss of confidence and an overall lack of guidance.

To be completely clear, the group sucked. We moped around, were not excited about our purpose and lacked vision.

After some time our higher leadership realized a change should be made and they moved our leader to a role better suited for his skill set.

I will tell you right now, that was a life changer.

We had a new leader come aboard that had the experience needed, was motivated and challenged us to be better then we were the day before.

Now overall the same 13 people were on the team, but the outcome was completely different.

We worked better as a group, shared responsibilities and were proud of our accomplishments.

I look back on this one example often when I think of how one person can shape a culture. 

Now, obviously the military has a top down culture when it comes to leadership, but it also embraces servant leadership.

In this scenario our new leader embraced servanthood. He made sure we were taken care of before his needs and that reflected in our outcome.

Have you been on a team that isn’t performing to its abilities? What is holding it back?

I had a conversation the other day with my CEO and he said something that stuck with me. He said, “leadership isn’t a title, its an action”.

Isn’t that true of culture too? You and I are the ones who will set the tone.

Do I always get it right? Absolutely not! I fail more times then I succeed. I tear down when I should build, allow emotions to dictate over data and more. At the end of the day my personal culture and that of my team is dictated by my thoughts and deeds, no one else.

Who determines yours?

Image credit: David Spinks

The other day I was asked, “When do you lead rationally vs. when do you lead emotionally?”

“Rationally” refers to communicating and appealing to those who are more cerebral, while “emotionally” means focusing more on feelings — it does not mean that one type is cold and the other overwrought.

People hear in different ways and it’s the responsibility of the speaker to communicate so that all can hear.

Over the years, I’ve been told many times by people in positional leadership roles that having to constantly alter how they present information is hard work and they believe that it’s up to the listener to understand what they’re saying.

What these bosses don’t understand is that if “they” can’t hear you “they” certainly won’t follow.

It’s not just a choice of rational vs. emotional, it’s understanding your audience and then speaking appropriately.

For instance, if you’re presenting plans for a new building to investors, business, the community and the media you might be inclined to concentrate on relative costs and ROI, since you want to win over the money crowd, but that doesn’t mean you should ignore the esthetics and ambiance.

First, you need to think about the different viewpoints and craft your presentation to include both types of information, even when it’s stuff about which you don’t care, that way you have it all at your fingertips.

During the presentation a money person suggests that construction costs could be lower by using smaller windows and lower ceilings and you know that this won’t fly with the community and business interests, since they’re concerned more with how the building will look and feel.

If you’ve done your homework, then you can show that higher ceilings and larger windows have been proven to increase worker productivity and the improved ambiance means higher rents.

Each group will focus on the information addressing their primary interest with the rest being relegated to backup position, but the important thing is that each heard something positive that directly addressed their concern.

Doing this is a habit you can cultivate and the fastest way to do so is to make yourself hyper aware of that to which your reaction is “who cares,” since that’s the information/viewpoint you’re most likely to skip.

While it’s not rocket science, it does require self-awareness supported by a driving passion to be heard.

While there’s never a guarantee that people will agree and follow, they will hear you and that’s where you need to start.

Image credit: Andy Morffew

I have two best friends, although according to the sign one of them gave me last Christmas I actually have a ‘Good’ friend and a ‘True’ friend.

My friendships with them are unilateral— they have met only once and it’s doubtful they will ever meet again.

The sign-giver is the true friend, while the other prefers good friend status, although she offered to bail us both out, which should count for something.

The sign hangs by my desk and I look at it frequently.

It is a constant reminder of all we have shared; all we have helped each other get through; all the stuff, both good and bad, that is coming down the future.

The sign has taken on even more meaning since I read Adam Grant’s post You’re Not My Friend. Grant is Wharton’s top-rated professor and the author of Give And Take (I wrote about the research for it here) and a very smart guy when it comes to human interaction.

Grant takes note of people who claim him as a friend, let alone those who have asked to friend him on Facebook.

Judging from recent friend requests, my friends apparently include a person who ignored me in grad school, a second cousin’s high school classmate, a colleague’s mentee, a peewee soccer teammate I vaguely remember, and some guy who sat at a table near me at a restaurant once.

He then helpfully provides seven criteria with which to judge whether you are a colleague, an acquaintance or a friend.

I should also note that Grant is under 40, so you can’t consider him an old fogey who doesn’t understand today’s social world.

If you number your friends in double or triple digits, let alone as a cast of thousands, you’re probably in for a letdown.

While Facebook uses ‘friends’ as a catch-all term you shouldn’t do the same, it’s highly unlikely that many of them are ‘good’, let alone ‘true’ friends.

Image credit: WishUponASign on Etsy

People have longed for an all-knowing leader who they can mindlessly follow and abdicate their decision-making, since time began.

Some seek this all-knowing leader in religion; others look to politics, while still others believe that business is a better source.

Their time would be better spent accepting the reality that no such thing exists anywhere in any walk of life.

Then there are the people who aspire to be that all-knowing leader.

To that end they amass thousands of friends and followers, network their way well beyond what’s needed to be a LinkedIn Lion and work ceaselessly to raise their Klout score.

Finally, there are those who know without doubt that all-knowing leaders are in the same category as the tooth fairy, Easter Bunny and Santa Clause and they aren’t them.

Which are you?

Flickr image credit: Warning Sign Generator

I don’t believe in “leaders.” Over the years I’ve spoken out many times against the idea that leaders are anointed and graced with special abilities, but am a big proponent of people showing initiative when it makes sense and stepping up to lead because they are the best person at that point.

Believing in initiative means I don’t believe in “followers.”

Followers rarely show initiative, make decisions or speak out when they disagree.

Followers have abdicated responsibility in favor of their “leader.”

Rather than saying the same stuff I’ve said before I thought you might ‘hear’ it better from someone like David Marquet, who, as the new captain of the nuclear powered submarine USS Santa Fe, “thought I would be a leader who empowered his subordinates.”

His wake-up call came when he ordered an action that couldn’t be done, but the officer passed it on anyway because he was told to by his “leader.”

Marquet offers first person proof that real “leadership” and “empowerment” don’t occupy the same space as “followers.”

I sincerely hope you will take the few minutes to click over and read something that could (should) have a profound effect on your management approach.

My thanks to Dan McCarthy at Great Leadership for including this guest post on his blog.

Flickr image credit: HikingArtist